Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nazir & Anor

Contempt arising from a staged road traffic accident requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants deliberately deceived the claimant, intended to interfere with the administration of justice, and engaged in conduct having a tendency to do so.

Contempt under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 32.14(1), additionally requires proof that a statement verified by a statement of truth was false, that it interfered, or was likely to interfere, materially with the course of justice, and that the maker lacked an honest belief in its truth and knew of that likelihood.

The claimant insurer brought committal proceedings against two defendants who had pursued personal injury and related claims arising from a collision involving the insured vehicle. The claimant alleged that the collision had been deliberately manufactured and that the defendants had made false statements in their claim form and particulars of claim.

The defendants denied involvement in a staged accident and said they had been searching for a scrapyard when the collision occurred. The court considered CCTV evidence, witness evidence and the defendants’ oral testimony. The central issues were whether the alleged staged accident and subsequent claims satisfied the elements of the two forms of contempt relied upon.

1. Legal standards. The claimant bore the burden of proof, and each allegation had to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The court identified two technically distinct but overlapping forms of contempt.
2. Interference with the administration of justice. The claimant had to prove that each defendant deliberately set out to deceive it by falsely claiming injury in a genuine accident when the accident had been created with others; intended thereby to interfere with the administration of justice; and engaged in conduct having a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.
3. False statements verified by a statement of truth. Under rule 32.14(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, the claimant had to prove that the statements were false; that they had, or if persisted in would have been likely to have, interfered with the course of justice in a material respect; and that, when made, the maker had no honest belief in their truth and knew of that likelihood.
4. Application. The CCTV evidence was overwhelming evidence of a staged collision. It showed repeated movements by the vehicles, suspicious conduct by the apparent organiser and driver, a prior near miss involving the same vehicle, and the eventual collision when the insured vehicle was plainly visible. The court rejected the possibility of mistaken identity.
5. The defendants’ explanations were not credible. Their evidence contained inconsistencies and implausible features, and their lack of convincing testimony did not itself establish the case but removed a possible reasonable doubt arising from the CCTV evidence.
6. The court found beyond reasonable doubt that both defendants knowingly participated in a staged accident and dishonestly pursued claims based upon it. They therefore intended to interfere with the course of justice and made false statements without an honest belief in their truth, knowing of the likely interference. Both defendants were found to be in contempt of court, and each ground was proved.